Classic Golden Era Hollywood Glamor Makeup

These make-up charts date from 1937, and show the precision and dedication taken by makeup artists to create the smooth and even texture upon the face, in tandem with the special lighting techniques utilized by the cinematographer. This practice surely continues today under similar circumstances despite the traditional golden-era glamor close-up being no longer used in the traditional form... But likely with less charts.

Lisa Rinzler: Rough Terrain & Camera Cars

From American Cinematographer, Culture Clash by Vincent LoBrutto (February 1999)

"The Dry Season took place predominately on a moving cyclo, but in Vietnam there's no such thing as a Shotmaker truck. Instead, we used a Jeep with bad shocks — or seemingly no shocks at all — as a camera car. The streets of Ho Chi Minh City can be potholed and bumpy. A cyclo is approximately 8' long, and the camera lens on our Jeep was approximately 12' from the actors. As a result, we were forced to use a 75mm or 100mm lens for close-ups — lenses that are, quite frankly, too long for unsteady moving-vehicle shots with dialogue. Bumpy footage would have distracted from the story, so we brought in Will Arnot on Steadicam to minimize the bumpiness of the roads. Another time, we used the Steadicam to create a makeshift crane, since the only one available to us was ancient, unsafe, and too heavy to move onto location. We created a rig which allowed the operator to simply walk down a ladder, creating a cranelike effect."

- Lisa Rinzler

Alar Kivilo: Snow & Contrast

From American Cinematographer, The Root of All Evil by Jay Holben (December 1998)

"We wanted to avoid blue skies and sun, and we were lucky for the most part. On overcast days, I would simply employ some negative fill so that the light wouldn't bounce around as much from the white snow. We covered the ground with solids and brought in more solids on one side to give the light more direction. Then, for close-ups, we'd shape and refine the light slightly with a bit of bounce fill off a card. During the few days when the sun did come out, I wanted to bring in a big crane with a huge silk to take care of the situation, but again, budgetary factors didn't allow it."


- Alar Kivilo, CSC

Chris Carter: Film vs. Television Composition

From American Cinematographer, Elusive Truth by Christopher Probst (July 1998)

"It's interesting what a 2.35:1 composition does to dramatic weight. Things that you're used to having to force on television — like a two- or three-shot — are standard on the feature screen, which carries a much broader dramatic image. Then when you get into a close-up, it has a totally different impact although I did feel that some scenes played better close than they did in the distance, because close shots put us more into the character's stories. Rob and Ward both have such a good sense of composition that I was actually quite amazed at the fluidity and lack of on-set discussion about composition and lens sizes."

-Chris Carter, Creator of The X-Files

Michael Ballhaus: Making 1.85 Feel Larger in Scope

From American Cinematographer, Sci-Fi Cowboys by David E. Williams (July 1999)

"Barry and I discussed the aspect ratio and film format for quite a while. At first, I wanted to shoot in widescreen super 35. After some tests, though, I felt Barry would be more comfortable working in spherical 1.85:1, for two reasons. First, I believe he feels that comedy works better in 1.85, which I think is right. Second, Barry never shot a film himself in 2.35:1. As a cinematographer, he had a very specific and precise style of shooting, and now, as a director, he also has a particular style. For example, his sense of framing is very different from what I would normally do. He likes to have the action or subject in the center most of the time, which doesn't work well in 2.35. In widescreen, you have to fill the whole frame. It doesn't make sense to have a close-up in the center of the frame and have nothing to the right or left.

Also, Barry loves wide-angle lenses, and I had never before used wide lenses to the extent that I did on this picture. Doing a close-up with an 18mm lens was something new for me, but it worked and was more dynamic. I liked that, but it was an adjustment I had to make. That type of style wouldn't be correct for every movie, but it was in this case because it feels different. In a close-up with an 18mm lens, even if the actor moves just a few inches, the effect is very different than if you're using a 50mm lens. There is a magnification to the change.

It's funny, the film is in 1.85:1, but it feels wider than that because of the use of wide lenses. You can see a lot more, and not only in terms of depth. For instance, if you have a close-up, you see a lot more of the background than you usually would. In this film, there are several scenes set in train cars. If we were on a 50mm doing our close-ups, the audience wouldn't see much of the car. With the 18mm, they can, which adds to the apparent scope of the film."

- Michael Ballhaus, ASC

Matthew Leonetti: Telephoto Lenses

Discussing Panavision's anamorphic C-series lenses used on Star Trek Insurrection:

"For scenes set on Ba'ku, we used some really long lenses-- up to 600mm and 800mm--because they give everything a bit more sparkle and the images are prettier. Just to do a closeup in anamorphic, you have to use a 180mm to get in tighter, but most of the movie was shot with 50mm, 75mm, 180mm, and 400mm lenses."